Heaven Is a Place Called Elizabeth Warren

Warren described how, in her work for the C.F.P.B., she was flabbergasted by the “phalanxes” of lobbyists who forced her to move aside in Congressional hallways; by how, after a meeting, she might head back to her office to look up figures while lobbyists would “get on cellphones to an army of well-trained lawyers preparing to do a customized memo.”

Warren’s frankness about the forces lined up against the current administration gets muddied when she talks about what she herself would be up against. In fact, one of her chief psychological strategies seems to be turning a blind eye to depressing realities. She told me of how, while working in Washington, reports said “there were now a zillion lobbyists for every single member of Congress.” Warren said, “I just had to look away, because no reasonable person would have kept on fighting at that point.” When I suggested that should she become a senator, her office would also be overrun with lobbyists, she laughed as if the thought were preposterous. “Mmm, that will be fun,” she said. “I just want to savor that image.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/heaven-is-a-place-called-elizabeth-warren.html?_r=2&ref=general&src=me&pagewanted=all

good general lesson for us Dems, as well as other frustrated members of the electorate:

"...60 votes to pass a greeting card." That pretty much sums it up.

I love Elizabeth Warren, but I kind of agree with her friend.

Warren is popular not because people think she is magical and can 'fix it all herself' but simply because she speaks her mind and her heart with crystal clarity, the direction she wants to move in is known, she does not mince words nor glad hand the opposition.
And just for gravy the author needs to understand that the same was expected of Obama the Orator. No one, repeat no one expected him to be 'a messiah' nor to 'fix it all himself' they expected him to clearly communicate as Warren does. We expected him to lead, not to 'do it all'. He did in fact run to be Chief Executive and Commander in Chief. He was not elected to be Bipartisan nor to be a mushy mouthed and accommodating to the opposition.
She does have a voice, and we thought he did too, thought he also had, as she does, the gumption to use that voice. That is what we hoped for from Obama, instead his voice has been absent or worse, advocating for right wing crap.

I would die a happy man.

:patriot:

:kick:

There's nothing especially "liberal" about wanting fairness. I think people of no political stripe whatsoever want a fair shake. I know moderates who think she's great, and even some conservative-leaning independents who like her "accountability" themes. The only ones who don't want fairness are the very rich. And since EW used to be a Republican (eons ago, before she wised up and they got ghastly to the point of no return), she's got a certain depth and breadth to her thought processes.

Also, it's annoying how they are always dividing--they're basically calling her the Obama antidote. Obama is not the enemy.

And then, there's the slam at middle-aged women, as well as a bit of a dis with regard to her speaking skills. I happen to think her speaking style is mesmerizing--she speaks PLAIN ENGLISH, and she does so beautifully. Full sentences, logical conclusions. I can't help notice that after they nitpick her speech-giving skills at the top of the article, they contradict themselves by saying that she can tell a "coherent, populist story" (about OWS) further along in the piece. And further down still, they slide in to the tale that she went to university on a debate scholarship. So, what is it? Can she communicate, or not? The answer is that she communicates brilliantly.

Further along, there's a bigass dose of defeatism: Warren is headed toward a legislative body that will most likely wear her down, too. Not necessarily--not if the rest of the country gets off their collective ass and sends her a few legislative 'friends' just like her--it's up to us to elect people who share that 'fairness' value.

I guess the NYT always has to "tabloid up" any story, with fake tensions, groupings and broad-brush commentary. Still and all, it's a favorable piece to the extent that they could manage to squeeze one out, so I suppose I shouldn't get too picky. And there's a good bit of "redemption" if you will in the last two paragraphs:

The key is not just emotional investment in election-year saviors but also an engagement with policy. A commitment to organized expressions of political desire — like those that have been harnessed so effectively in recent years on the right — have been absent for far too long in Democratic politics. Now, with labor protests, campaigns to block voter suppression and personhood measures and the occupations of cities around the nation, there seem to be some small signs that liberals are remembering that politics requires more of them, that they need movements, not just messiahs. But their engagement must deepen, broaden and persist beyond last week’s elections and well beyond next year’s elections if there is any chance for politicians like Warren to succeed.

Because while she might provide her supporters and her constituents a voice that, if properly tuned, will rattle doors that are now gummed shut, what Elizabeth Warren cannot do is fix this mess herself.

There are some people who feel that Obama should have "fixed the mess himself," so we'll see how that goes. Blame is easy; engagement with policy, as well as growing and selecting the best candidates to stand for election, is a bit more work.

daughter who lives in MA (and is a lifelong liberal). I wonder what happened. She shot up so much after she announced. My dtr shrugs and says that people like Scott Brown...